From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88EBBC67861 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2024 08:36:42 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:From:References:Cc:To:Subject: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=TGtakkgZTGAecwiQ0mWTp0JlEAmt0wEs+RMcfCmFnjM=; b=qdcNUb+hZNNI5V eJfTRKI+RyVoxHxcCWdmdIBznnt3fegT0G6kbRLB1Pditz/qonKNyqVFGYKPj18pIEVyB/FVXbBBA uWJLBhk2KzLNMDgXko6VRYVcKI8zPQTQjqh2yEtZaO1hL7tHwlwclJyp9SuyOSCYo6PntBQAKn/Sb eMXbmMRmAAQsgQOEeir72gkncjDEBmh9BsGzQgmHau4ldOmOUH75elAgq6bPqGTS2m9mwQ2Lw1StE jN3dFcgg5wgwBSMD3uwUgTgKUeQI1OXXuvD4bIF5WJEwzf4xc9Ozbp3AEeoelLiG+stD/6zRyBL0u fTleAbVPQVPiTy/VU5KQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rtkUQ-0000000EvSc-44wi; Mon, 08 Apr 2024 08:36:30 +0000 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rtkUN-0000000EvQb-422R for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 08 Apr 2024 08:36:29 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1712565386; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:autocrypt:autocrypt; bh=JWCyBqXSOrlIAdyizfHRPZAsjfer/rBsGaiHFl8omqI=; b=jUSUAxBDqyX56RHN5wdOQglTcfeiwB3B8a4arMZ/h8Lpaj75OqRNnhmP/LiFf8tAYQIrNt uAUGv1Vk948/aAzg3yrNlXZS/fVFAf6ZU6WqP8O8aqYxVhQmL2EpfWnqO0jQLr6j8JkVol f5bLXTug8pdcrcDooDg0cnday5dCXsE= Received: from mail-wm1-f71.google.com (mail-wm1-f71.google.com [209.85.128.71]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-484-rVTN_QKZPIazMhnLMtLYWQ-1; Mon, 08 Apr 2024 04:36:23 -0400 X-MC-Unique: rVTN_QKZPIazMhnLMtLYWQ-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f71.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-4162b9b1702so18211035e9.2 for ; Mon, 08 Apr 2024 01:36:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1712565382; x=1713170182; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:organization:autocrypt :content-language:from:references:cc:to:subject:user-agent :mime-version:date:message-id:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=JWCyBqXSOrlIAdyizfHRPZAsjfer/rBsGaiHFl8omqI=; b=pKRhYXbG0mCObltkgHVuUWARU+bFQAEP4lK9NsbT3k6IXhhIx7GaFhmXMgV+6aENMX rHLYhdvKgqsVN5aN+8VA+0toSc+gyAY83fPEUvBLfjcWc9N8R64BCXFkA5lWjx+1MBWe VL1hAtQw1VBjVVVlLESm9H1KSV4FYQ6pDqwIypm4P2JpTtkh0h8XfyAU+rC2lRjjBWEx YOJ97WIgSAImU7dxnp/uwFIzgtehkJznDB0XUctzVpsxw87dxMA3hrKwhc4MOby7pd2h 20Z/vU8SzbDh4IgyADq3drOQPQ67nTv1KsFOu8Oy+UBWg8KElOgaMXo2TAIspqMGeFQk iz/g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Ywexvl6d0P13z0H1UWjNeYxcPA9gX520EMUZgybBs5JFRmW0rkt 1kFavCB/tT4BYksJa+0hLjSOcXmEithHIdAEaz3uIPOVw5/WpJcA5H0lP6YTBmT+Xlm6QMRHMQh I/vMxnY8qevJChX4wENLjunMi2PHtz91WQQwDCiFB6P26LX7kt7QxxpAQHBVnilZ7oLScoH/9 X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:5106:b0:414:63c2:23cc with SMTP id o6-20020a05600c510600b0041463c223ccmr7454338wms.2.1712565382610; Mon, 08 Apr 2024 01:36:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGdOMw2EkAcjI9pppz0RUaGuUBEY24aFMFQ1T/VIY1IPJwT9ro5682HvMiT5fcZh5LzRE5KNw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:5106:b0:414:63c2:23cc with SMTP id o6-20020a05600c510600b0041463c223ccmr7454316wms.2.1712565382195; Mon, 08 Apr 2024 01:36:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2003:cb:c718:1300:9860:66a2:fe4d:c379? (p200300cbc7181300986066a2fe4dc379.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [2003:cb:c718:1300:9860:66a2:fe4d:c379]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q18-20020a05600c46d200b00414659ba8c2sm12643588wmo.37.2024.04.08.01.36.21 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Apr 2024 01:36:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 10:36:20 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/4] Reduce cost of ptep_get_lockless on arm64 To: Ryan Roberts , Mark Rutland , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Alexander Shishkin , Jiri Olsa , Ian Rogers , Adrian Hunter , Andrew Morton , Muchun Song Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20240215121756.2734131-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com> <0ae22147-e1a1-4bcb-8a4c-f900f3f8c39e@redhat.com> <374d8500-4625-4bff-a934-77b5f34cf2ec@arm.com> <8bd9e136-8575-4c40-bae2-9b015d823916@redhat.com> <86680856-2532-495b-951a-ea7b2b93872f@arm.com> <35236bbf-3d9a-40e9-84b5-e10e10295c0c@redhat.com> From: David Hildenbrand Autocrypt: addr=david@redhat.com; keydata= xsFNBFXLn5EBEAC+zYvAFJxCBY9Tr1xZgcESmxVNI/0ffzE/ZQOiHJl6mGkmA1R7/uUpiCjJ dBrn+lhhOYjjNefFQou6478faXE6o2AhmebqT4KiQoUQFV4R7y1KMEKoSyy8hQaK1umALTdL QZLQMzNE74ap+GDK0wnacPQFpcG1AE9RMq3aeErY5tujekBS32jfC/7AnH7I0v1v1TbbK3Gp XNeiN4QroO+5qaSr0ID2sz5jtBLRb15RMre27E1ImpaIv2Jw8NJgW0k/D1RyKCwaTsgRdwuK Kx/Y91XuSBdz0uOyU/S8kM1+ag0wvsGlpBVxRR/xw/E8M7TEwuCZQArqqTCmkG6HGcXFT0V9 PXFNNgV5jXMQRwU0O/ztJIQqsE5LsUomE//bLwzj9IVsaQpKDqW6TAPjcdBDPLHvriq7kGjt WhVhdl0qEYB8lkBEU7V2Yb+SYhmhpDrti9Fq1EsmhiHSkxJcGREoMK/63r9WLZYI3+4W2rAc UucZa4OT27U5ZISjNg3Ev0rxU5UH2/pT4wJCfxwocmqaRr6UYmrtZmND89X0KigoFD/XSeVv jwBRNjPAubK9/k5NoRrYqztM9W6sJqrH8+UWZ1Idd/DdmogJh0gNC0+N42Za9yBRURfIdKSb B3JfpUqcWwE7vUaYrHG1nw54pLUoPG6sAA7Mehl3nd4pZUALHwARAQABzSREYXZpZCBIaWxk ZW5icmFuZCA8ZGF2aWRAcmVkaGF0LmNvbT7CwZgEEwEIAEICGwMGCwkIBwMCBhUIAgkKCwQW AgMBAh4BAheAAhkBFiEEG9nKrXNcTDpGDfzKTd4Q9wD/g1oFAl8Ox4kFCRKpKXgACgkQTd4Q 9wD/g1oHcA//a6Tj7SBNjFNM1iNhWUo1lxAja0lpSodSnB2g4FCZ4R61SBR4l/psBL73xktp rDHrx4aSpwkRP6Epu6mLvhlfjmkRG4OynJ5HG1gfv7RJJfnUdUM1z5kdS8JBrOhMJS2c/gPf wv1TGRq2XdMPnfY2o0CxRqpcLkx4vBODvJGl2mQyJF/gPepdDfcT8/PY9BJ7FL6Hrq1gnAo4 3Iv9qV0JiT2wmZciNyYQhmA1V6dyTRiQ4YAc31zOo2IM+xisPzeSHgw3ONY/XhYvfZ9r7W1l pNQdc2G+o4Di9NPFHQQhDw3YTRR1opJaTlRDzxYxzU6ZnUUBghxt9cwUWTpfCktkMZiPSDGd KgQBjnweV2jw9UOTxjb4LXqDjmSNkjDdQUOU69jGMUXgihvo4zhYcMX8F5gWdRtMR7DzW/YE BgVcyxNkMIXoY1aYj6npHYiNQesQlqjU6azjbH70/SXKM5tNRplgW8TNprMDuntdvV9wNkFs 9TyM02V5aWxFfI42+aivc4KEw69SE9KXwC7FSf5wXzuTot97N9Phj/Z3+jx443jo2NR34XgF 89cct7wJMjOF7bBefo0fPPZQuIma0Zym71cP61OP/i11ahNye6HGKfxGCOcs5wW9kRQEk8P9 M/k2wt3mt/fCQnuP/mWutNPt95w9wSsUyATLmtNrwccz63XOwU0EVcufkQEQAOfX3n0g0fZz Bgm/S2zF/kxQKCEKP8ID+Vz8sy2GpDvveBq4H2Y34XWsT1zLJdvqPI4af4ZSMxuerWjXbVWb T6d4odQIG0fKx4F8NccDqbgHeZRNajXeeJ3R7gAzvWvQNLz4piHrO/B4tf8svmRBL0ZB5P5A 2uhdwLU3NZuK22zpNn4is87BPWF8HhY0L5fafgDMOqnf4guJVJPYNPhUFzXUbPqOKOkL8ojk CXxkOFHAbjstSK5Ca3fKquY3rdX3DNo+EL7FvAiw1mUtS+5GeYE+RMnDCsVFm/C7kY8c2d0G NWkB9pJM5+mnIoFNxy7YBcldYATVeOHoY4LyaUWNnAvFYWp08dHWfZo9WCiJMuTfgtH9tc75 7QanMVdPt6fDK8UUXIBLQ2TWr/sQKE9xtFuEmoQGlE1l6bGaDnnMLcYu+Asp3kDT0w4zYGsx 5r6XQVRH4+5N6eHZiaeYtFOujp5n+pjBaQK7wUUjDilPQ5QMzIuCL4YjVoylWiBNknvQWBXS lQCWmavOT9sttGQXdPCC5ynI+1ymZC1ORZKANLnRAb0NH/UCzcsstw2TAkFnMEbo9Zu9w7Kv AxBQXWeXhJI9XQssfrf4Gusdqx8nPEpfOqCtbbwJMATbHyqLt7/oz/5deGuwxgb65pWIzufa N7eop7uh+6bezi+rugUI+w6DABEBAAHCwXwEGAEIACYCGwwWIQQb2cqtc1xMOkYN/MpN3hD3 AP+DWgUCXw7HsgUJEqkpoQAKCRBN3hD3AP+DWrrpD/4qS3dyVRxDcDHIlmguXjC1Q5tZTwNB boaBTPHSy/Nksu0eY7x6HfQJ3xajVH32Ms6t1trDQmPx2iP5+7iDsb7OKAb5eOS8h+BEBDeq 3ecsQDv0fFJOA9ag5O3LLNk+3x3q7e0uo06XMaY7UHS341ozXUUI7wC7iKfoUTv03iO9El5f XpNMx/YrIMduZ2+nd9Di7o5+KIwlb2mAB9sTNHdMrXesX8eBL6T9b+MZJk+mZuPxKNVfEQMQ a5SxUEADIPQTPNvBewdeI80yeOCrN+Zzwy/Mrx9EPeu59Y5vSJOx/z6OUImD/GhX7Xvkt3kq Er5KTrJz3++B6SH9pum9PuoE/k+nntJkNMmQpR4MCBaV/J9gIOPGodDKnjdng+mXliF3Ptu6 3oxc2RCyGzTlxyMwuc2U5Q7KtUNTdDe8T0uE+9b8BLMVQDDfJjqY0VVqSUwImzTDLX9S4g/8 kC4HRcclk8hpyhY2jKGluZO0awwTIMgVEzmTyBphDg/Gx7dZU1Xf8HFuE+UZ5UDHDTnwgv7E th6RC9+WrhDNspZ9fJjKWRbveQgUFCpe1sa77LAw+XFrKmBHXp9ZVIe90RMe2tRL06BGiRZr jPrnvUsUUsjRoRNJjKKA/REq+sAnhkNPPZ/NNMjaZ5b8Tovi8C0tmxiCHaQYqj7G2rgnT0kt WNyWQQ== Organization: Red Hat In-Reply-To: X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20240408_013628_140236_88D71A28 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 35.30 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On 03.04.24 14:59, Ryan Roberts wrote: > On 27/03/2024 09:34, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 26.03.24 18:51, Ryan Roberts wrote: >>> On 26/03/2024 17:39, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>> On 26.03.24 18:32, Ryan Roberts wrote: >>>>> On 26/03/2024 17:04, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Likely, we just want to read "the real deal" on both sides of the >>>>>>>>>> pte_same() >>>>>>>>>> handling. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sorry I'm not sure I understand? You mean read the full pte including >>>>>>>>> access/dirty? That's the same as dropping the patch, right? Of course if >>>>>>>>> we do >>>>>>>>> that, we still have to keep pte_get_lockless() around for this case. In an >>>>>>>>> ideal >>>>>>>>> world we would convert everything over to ptep_get_lockless_norecency() and >>>>>>>>> delete ptep_get_lockless() to remove the ugliness from arm64. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, agreed. Patch #3 does not look too crazy and it wouldn't really affect >>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>> architecture. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I do wonder if pte_same_norecency() should be defined per architecture >>>>>>>> and the >>>>>>>> default would be pte_same(). So we could avoid the mkold etc on all other >>>>>>>> architectures. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wouldn't that break it's semantics? The "norecency" of >>>>>>> ptep_get_lockless_norecency() means "recency information in the returned pte >>>>>>> may >>>>>>> be incorrect". But the "norecency" of pte_same_norecency() means "ignore the >>>>>>> access and dirty bits when you do the comparison". >>>>>> >>>>>> My idea was that ptep_get_lockless_norecency() would return the actual >>>>>> result on >>>>>> these architectures. So e.g., on x86, there would be no actual change in >>>>>> generated code. >>>>> >>>>> I think this is a bad plan... You'll end up with subtle differences between >>>>> architectures. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But yes, the documentation of these functions would have to be improved. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now I wonder if ptep_get_lockless_norecency() should actively clear >>>>>> dirty/accessed bits to more easily find any actual issues where the bits still >>>>>> matter ... >>>>> >>>>> I did a version that took that approach. Decided it was not as good as this way >>>>> though. Now for the life of me, I can't remember my reasoning. >>>> >>>> Maybe because there are some code paths that check accessed/dirty without >>>> "correctness" implications? For example, if the PTE is already dirty, no need to >>>> set it dirty etc? >>> >>> I think I decided I was penalizing the architectures that don't care because all >>> their ptep_get_norecency() and ptep_get_lockless_norecency() need to explicitly >>> clear access/dirty. And I would have needed ptep_get_norecency() from day 1 so >>> that I could feed its result into pte_same(). >> >> True. With ptep_get_norecency() you're also penalizing other architectures. >> Therefore my original thought about making the behavior arch-specific, but the >> arch has to make sure to get the combination of >> ptep_get_lockless_norecency()+ptep_same_norecency() is right. >> >> So if an arch decide to ignore bits in ptep_get_lockless_norecency(), it must >> make sure to also ignore them in ptep_same_norecency(), and must be able to >> handle access/dirty bit changes differently. >> >> Maybe one could have one variant for "hw-managed access/dirty" vs. "sw managed >> accessed or dirty". Only the former would end up ignoring stuff here, the latter >> would not. >> >> But again, just some random thoughts how this affects other architectures and >> how we could avoid it. The issue I describe in patch #3 would be gone if >> ptep_same_norecency() would just do a ptep_same() check on other architectures >> -- and would make it easier to sell :) >> > > I've been thinking some more about this. I think your proposal is the following: > > > // ARM64 > ptep_get_lockless_norecency() > { > - returned access/dirty may be incorrect > - returned access/dirty may be differently incorrect between 2 calls > } > pte_same_norecency() > { > - ignore access/dirty when doing comparison > } > ptep_set_access_flags(ptep, pte) > { > - must not assume access/dirty in pte are "more permissive" than > access/dirty in *ptep > - must only set access/dirty in *ptep, never clear > } > > > // Other arches: no change to generated code > ptep_get_lockless_norecency() > { > return ptep_get_lockless(); > } > pte_same_norecency() > { > return pte_same(); > } > ptep_set_access_flags(ptep, pte) > { > - may assume access/dirty in pte are "more permissive" than access/dirty > in *ptep > - if no HW access/dirty updates, "*ptep = pte" always results in "more > permissive" change > } > > An arch either specializes all 3 or none of them. > > This would allow us to get rid of ptep_get_lockless(). > > And it addresses the bug you found with ptep_set_access_flags(). > > > BUT, I still have a nagging feeling that there are likely to be other similar > problems caused by ignoring access/dirty during pte_same_norecency(). I can't > convince myself that its definitely all safe and robust. Right, we'd have to identify the other possible cases and document what an arch + common code must stick to to make it work. Some rules would be: if an arch implements ptep_get_lockless_norecency(): (1) Passing the result from ptep_get_lockless_norecency() to pte_same() is wrong. (2) Checking pte_young()/pte_old/pte_dirty()/pte_clean() after ptep_get_lockless_norecency() is very likely wrong. > > So I'm leaning towards dropping patch 3 and therefore keeping > ptep_get_lockless() around. > > Let me know if you have any insight that might help me change my mind :) I'm wondering if it would help if we could find a better name (or concept) for "norecency" here, that expresses that only on some archs we'd have that fuzzy handling. Keeping ptep_get_lockless() around for now sounds like the best alternative. -- Cheers, David / dhildenb _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel